What is an ideal approach to start writing different sections of research papers? Which section should be written first and which should be later?

For me, I will start with methods and results first. Then discussion and followed by introduction. Abstracts will be the last.

I agree with Zx Chong because you don't always know what your results will show and so you can write your introduction later to match your results and method :)

The recommended order by most scholars is:

1-Start by your tables and figures: Figures and tables should stand alone and tell a complete story. The reader should not refer back to the text to understand.

Tips:

o Use the fewest figures and tables needed to tell the story.

o Do not present the same data in both a figure and a table.

2-Results: this section must present the data on a higher level than the tables or figures (you don't need to "read" the tables or figures in this section, just point out to the main points).

3-Methods: Give a clear overview of what was done (and make it easy for your reader).

4-Discussion:

o Answer the questions asked

o Support your conclusion (your data, others’ data)

o Defend your conclusion (anticipate criticisms)

o Give the “big-picture” take-home message (implications)

5-Introduction: It is not an exhaustive review of your general topic (should focus on the specific hypothesis/aim of your study).

6-Abstract: Gives highlights from each section of the paper.

You may find these notes beneficial:

You will already have much of the methods section from your IRB and this presumably will have been used to help you instruct whoever was assisting with data collection. I find including text while conducting analyses using packages like knitr and sweave mean the results section is already partially written. So these are in part done before you start ``writing.'' I think the order of preparing a detailed intro and discussion will vary by your field (and if it is pre-registered).

very nice information

Adopt a similar strategy to writing each section: Body first, Concluding paragraph, Intro paragraph.

Hello Jawad,

The following mind map may be helpful

nice highlight by Essam Munir.

There is no given and simple answer for your question that alwas will be able to be applied. I would say that it depends on your familiarty with the subject and on the metohd used. If you use a qualitative or a quantitative method will probably also influence.

Sometimes you do not know som much about the topic and then needs to start by a reading on that. In such cases the introduction and background will be written first, at least in parts, and later complemented.

If you do not have sufficient knowledge about the method you are going to use then you have to start in that end by readings about that. In that caes the methods section will be written early/first

Of course you have to collect data before the analysis can take place and it is first after the analysis has been performed that figures and tables can be made an the results written in text.

In some cases you have to have ethical permission to collect data and then this has to be obtained first. Parts of this proecess should be written in the methods section.

Discussion can never be written before the results are in place, except for discussion on methods which can be written as sson as the methodds section is finished.

Abstract is written last since it should summarize the manusript.

he research objectives write first and then determine the type of epidemiological study appropriate for the research and then write the practical side of the research and then the results and then the discussion and recommendations and finally introduction on the search and arrange the referrances.

Before writing manuscript, I use to make a plan for developing the first draft. As many social science journals restrict the word limit of a manuscript between 6000 - 8000 words.

A paper whether it is qualitative or quantitative, I finish the literature review first followed by methodology. Literature review and methodology revalidate whether we are right track in conducting the final analysis with the proposed model and hypotheses.

After literature review and methodology, I start writing the detailed results and discussion.

I give more time in writing implication section highlighting both theoretical and managerial implications.

After writing implication section, I like to write introduction section highlighting importance and relevance of the topic, brief account of work done in the related area, how this paper highlights gaps and make unique contribution etc.

Finally, I write abstract highlighting very brief account of each section mentioned above.

Thanks other authors for sharing your views.

I agree that there is no one way on doing this. The important point is that there is no need to start from the beginning of the paper. The key point is that your problem analysis and lit review should justify what you are doing, so if you know what you are doing, you can write that first and then write the part where you justify what you are doing. Start your paper with a sentence explaining the topic of your paper and why the topic is interesting/important. Somewhere in the introduction or conclusion, write about the significance of your research. The placement of this sentence depends on the guidelines of your community. As mentioned, the abstract should come last

I agree with Joel. The point is: just get going - start with what you find easiest to begin with. Often that is the methods, providing you had a plan from the beginning (!!). The background section will need to be customized to build up to your findings, thus, it would be more efficient to proceed with the results. Good luck!!

You ask:

“What is an ideal approach to start writing different sections of research papers? Which section should be written first and which should be later?”

I am not entirely clear what you mean by ‘…start writing the different sections…” By writing, I take this to mean ‘writing up…’ getting your paper from a series of drafts to a final written state. However from the way others have answered I think you mean what stages of the ‘research’ or enquiry should be conducted first/before others. I recommend first some careful thought and a look at what has already been done/researched into your topic (a general lit review) – from this you can determine YOUR focus and approach – even start to pose questions to be answered. Then do a thorough focused literature review to very clearly see what others have said or found or argued about. This might, for example be limited to specific authors/sources or to a period after a certain year. Looking at what others have said - do you agree with them, disagree, agree or disagree to some extent, have a different view and so on. From these deliberations you can both refine your ideas on approach and method as well as your research question. Whilst doing this, of course, start to assemble your list of references, don’t wait until you have written your glittering prose and then try and find your sources all over again. Now, depending on your topic, specialism and the local academic rules you need to follow – you might now draft an ethics proposal if required and the basis of this can be included (if needed) as a paragraph in the ethics section of your Methods Chapter.

Now consider the HOW of answering your question? – What is your position? What is it you are trying to do? What is the best way to get data/material to support YOUR position or argument(s)?

This pondering informs your thinking about your methodology – and leads on to how you then collect your data. At the same time of course you need to consider what it is you will do with your data once you have collected it – i.e. not a good idea to collect a thousand responses and then wonder how on earth it can be sorted.

Organise the administration of your data collection (and write this down as part of your research story). Conduct your research (and again write down how the responses came in if that is how you are collecting your data). Then do your analysis and write up how you did it. Now draw out your results and write this chapter up with wonderful graphs and tables and visuals.

Having done all this and become the world’s expert on your paper – start to put it all together adopting a common style for each chapter with an introduction and a concluding section for each and as many sections as are needed to tell your story.

NOW you know what you have done and what you have found, you are now in a position to draft your introduction chapter by drawing elements from all the detailed notes and drafts you made whilst doing the research. In a way the Introduction chapter should almost write itself. Tidy up your draft, check all the refs in your narrative appear in your list of refs and vice versa. Create your contents section. Write your Abstract, produce a title cover and include any other detail required by your institution. Then relax!

I agree with the strategy of writing the Results section first, based on preparing the Tables and Figures as a first step. I always write the literature review last, because by then I know what background materials are most relevant, so I can avoid the trap of writing an overly long background section with too much irrelevant content.

I agree with prof. Morgan. In the quantitative research, the analysis and result section written first. based on the result, the supporting literature is added in literature review section. further, introduction is written. Finally the conclusion and implications of the study is written.

I follow method of prof. J. Jero I learned from someone: write an proposed abstract and some titles (like a research proposal), then go through the section and complete gradually.... obviously that resembles a back-and-forth movement rather than a linear process...

BEFORE WRITING, we must have a PLAN (research), even if it is minimal and is a draft on paper. This Plan implies: 1. A problem to solve (or observed gap), 2. Some possible solutions (initial open hypotheses, without prejudging anything), both will shape the research topic (and possible title), 3. Next, we must limit it and specify where we will focus our work 4. We choose the most appropriate methodology to address it. Difference between quantitative and qualitative (according to Åsa) 5. We review the literature on the subject 6. We conduct an investigation to obtain new information 7. We will present the results adequately, if possible in tables and figures 8. We will proceed to discuss it, highlighting the conclusions, new findings and limitations of our work (future works) 9. We write (according to Essam) and we disseminate the research

Therefore, first of all, we have to know that we want, what is our objective (according to Muthana, Joel and James), although this does not mean that we force the results of our research to adapt them to our ideas. My answer could be orthodox, but I wanted to emphasize that we wrote with a clear prior purpose: to solve or clarify a problem.

I wonder if there is difference between writing up articles with quantitative or qualitative methodology? I've now written (and got accepted) my first qualitative article and I've started on my second. I find myself doing opposite of what I have recommended above; I wrote the background and methods first (in that order). I had some preliminary analysis of the qualitative material and elaborated a concept map, but was not quite ready to start presenting the findings. To get going, I just found it easier to start with the background, contrary to what I've done when I've written quantitative articles. Does somebody have similar experiences when writing up studies using different methodology?

Best

John-Kåre

In my latest UGC "Student Radicalism iMajor Research Project, "StSudent Radicalism in Post Left Bengal",which is available in Research Gate, I started writing the report with analyzing the data.I put into place the tables and diagrams and analyzed them.Of course, I had a conceptual framework in mind.But first I analyzed the data and wrote the findings, then the other sections.The survey of literature was written last.After writing the main report I wrote the Executive Summary.I congratulate the re searcher for putting a very good question .I hope my experience will help him

The first thing is to list the key message(s) that you intend to convey in your paper, so that you can keep focus. In writing the actual manuscript, begin with the section that might be easiest for you, such as methods (since this is likely to be already available in your records ), and then results.

This can be followed by discussion and conclusions, and thereafter the introduction. The abstract should be written last.

The following publications may further help, namely: the approach of “King Model” in writing papers (see: Derntl, 2014, p. 108); IMRAD format (see: Day, 1998; Peat et al, 2002; Wu, 2011), etc.

I often start with the methods. I should be able to write the methods before I have all the results. If I cannot do this then the project is in deep trouble. I might have to revise the methods at the end if there have been problems. Writing the methods first insures that they are written when all the materials and equipment are all available. If written months later, things will be moved or forgotten.

Results are the next part, and should be fairly easy. I will need to do the analysis and produce figures/tables before I can write the discussion.

Introduction comes next. I need all the citations. I should already have a fair idea of the literature as I would have needed that before starting the project. However, some relevant work was probably published while I was running the experiment. There may be some elements of the introduction that help the reader understand why the project was important (disease X vectored by Y causes billions in economic losses and thousands of jobs).

At this point the discussion should nearly write itself.

I typically follow a top down approach, rather than a front to end approach. This means the following order.

1. Title

2. Conclusions (as bullets)

3. Main section titles

4. Subsection titles

5. Designing the figures for each subsection

6. Designing the tables for each subsection

7. Elaboration of the text for each subsection as list of bullets(including formulas)

8. Making decision on the lengths of the individual subsections and the paper as s whole

9. Developing the text for each subsections

10. Proof reading

11. Writing the abstract

12. Composing the keywords

13. Finalizing the literature references

14. Finalizing the layout

As many of the answers have stated, start with what you already know. If you know your methods, then write them up; if you know your results, then write them up. That way you can focus your introduction and literature review on explaining why you are asking the questions your data has answered and your discussion on explaining how your data answers the questions you raised or added a solution to the problem raised in your introduction and lit review. Somewhere during this process you should have chosen where you want to publish and then start to read to see how the published articles are being organized.

I recommend to my student to go with the free writing style.

Write as no one will ever read you. That is how I write too. As often you hjave inspiration for one part rather than the other.Writing remains a creative process and we should treat it as such. We write without reading, when the paper is done we edit and edit again before feeling ready to give it to someone else to read. Just like in designing things we never get it right thr first time.

There is no obvious writing style but as it followed by many authors, you can start with your figures and tables, then discuss about them and your methods, results and your conclusion at last.

Personally i think there is no ideal way but rather depending on the author's preference, readiness of the author, new or experienced researchers, types of research etc.

E.g. new researcher might follow this sequence like 1) Introduction, 2) Literature Review, 3) Conceptual Framework / Research Model / Hypotheses, 4) Research Methodology, 5) Result Findings, 6) Discussion, 7) Limitations, Future Research Recommendation & Conclusion

For me, usually I follow this sequence of write up after the research is completed (but each section can loop back to the previous ones sometimes for numerous rounds to enhance its quality) :

ABSTRACT:

"The part of a research paper that comes in the first place but written last"